Via Digby, Bloomberg, some Broderites, and some 80s retreads are calling for a "government of national unity." Can we get a grip, please? Google it. Governments of national unity are for countries that have suffered huge trauma, like apartheid in South Africa or decades of civil war in the Sudan. You don't proclaim a government of national unity because there might be a change in government from one party to another, or because the cocktail wienies won't be coming, or because somebody's winger operative girlfriend is going to enter the dreaded private sector, or because a hippie or two is going to become a undersecretary of this, that, or the other. And you especially don't proclaim one because DC is your place.
Because that would be just too, too transparently a deeply bogus cynical maneuver.
But before dealing with the distressing detail here, let me explain how we can calibrate teh bogus going forward, by introducing a few key technical terms:
boh-go's*-tee n. 1. The degree to which something is bogus.[B]ogosity is measured with a bogometer; in a seminar, when a speaker says something bogus, a listener might raise his hand and say "My bogometer just triggered". More extremely, "You just pinned my bogometer" means you just said or did something so outrageously bogus that it is off the scale, pinning the bogometer needle at the highest possible reading (one might also say "You just redlined my bogometer"). ... 2. The potential field generated by a bogon flux; see quantum bogodynamics. See also bogon flux, bogon filter, bogus.
Readers, and especially those of you who are technically inclined: I encourage you to commit these terms to memory, and study to apply them when you examine and critique Village political discourse. (Anybody who wants plans for the bogometer has only to ask for Geoff, who tends to wet bar in the executive chambers of The Mighty Corrente Building. Tell him "the right people" sent you. The password is "specimen jar.' But I digress.)
So, the Bloomers proposal for
Wall Street Naderism government of national unity pins my bogometer. Let's look at it:
The Bloomers facts are bogus:
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.
Come on. Bloomberg's a chart guy; his operation is nothing but charts, and he knows the numbers. This is the chart via Digby) the Bloomers would be showing, if they had an ounce of integrity.
This isn't "gridlock." This is the Republicans filibustering everything in sight, and Bush vetoing everything he can. The solution to that problem is to take their power away from them, which the American people started to do in 2006, and -- may the God(ess)(e)(s) of Our Choice smile upon us -- will finish doing in 2008. That's the problem the Bloomers are addressing, through a sort of pre-election "pre-coup" (See? They learned from Florida 2000. We face a thinking enemy...)
The Bloomers solution is bogus:
Boren, who will host the meeting at the university, where he is president, said: "It is not a gathering to urge any one person to run for president or to say there necessarily ought to be an independent option. But if we don't see a refocusing of the campaign on a Bipartisan approach, I would feel I would want to encourage an independent candidacy."
Heh. Wall Street Naderites, just like I said. Can you say "empty threat"? Because I can. Go for it, Boren, you stupid tool.
Anyhow, last I checked, and I think this has been true for quite some time, elections were about competing candidates. See, the idea is to get people to "vote" for one candidate over another, not because they are the same, but because they are different!
And that gives me an idea. Call me crazy, but as long as we've got this "vote" concept going, why don't we hold something called an "election" and let the source of sovereignty, the "people," choose the President? Instead of the Bloomers? How would that be? Deal?
Finally, the Bloomers themselves are bogus. Here are the deeply Serious Democrats involved:
Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart.
That's the best they can do? 80s retreads? Honestly, who cares?
Frankly, I think this is good news. The only thing these people understand is fear, and they're afraid. More like this, please.
NOTE My question is: Will Obama pin the bogometer on his own candidacy by supporting this effort? Certainly, his "unity" rhetoric fits in with a "government of national unity" almost... like it was made to do just that, eh? His fan base seems to think so. They burble:
"Today, we are a house divided," the letter said. "We believe that the next president must be able to call for a unity of effort by choosing the best talent available -- without regard to political party -- to help lead our nation."
If that is what they want, they should simply endorse Barack Obama. UNITY, changing America from red states and blue states to the UNITED STATES.
Why re-create the wheel when you have a candidate who can do the job, is FIRED UP! and READY TO GO!
Invincible ignorance. A fool throws a stone into the sea, and a thousand wise men can't get it back out. The "house divided" rhetoric, like the entire "government of national unity concept, is a hysterical over-reaction by the Conservative Movement to the prospect of losing power, and they're using some 80s retreads as tools. That's all that's going on. Worse, though, is that the Bloomers message has been reinforced by Obama's soaring but shallow Red/Blue rhetoric. The problem isn't Red vs. Blue; the problem is the Conservative Movement versus the interests of the American People.
But what does Obama think? Is he with the Bloomers, or not?
Is he bogus, or not?